Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Arc-based formulations for coordinated drayage problems Christopher Neuman Karen Smilowitz Athanasios Ziliaskopoulos INFORMS San Jose November 18, 2002 Outline • • • • • Drayage and the problems in Chicago Previous academic work A new formulation Results Future directions What is drayage? • OED definition: originally a handcart; drayage – process of draying. • Now, the transportation of rail freight by truck, usually occurring at the beginning or end of the journey • While a small (~5%) proportion of the distance of an average container, is usually a large (~40%) proportion of the cost (Reebie Associates) The Chicago story • A hub for rail freight transportation, and a major origin and terminus for freight (large manufacturing industry) • 26 rail yards in/around Chicago; many are landlocked (no brown/greenfield alternatives) so no expansion • Estimated 25,000 lifts (transfers on/off a train) per day Problems with drayage • No coordination of cars based on area • • • • origin/destination Lack of uniform equipment Fee structure penalizes agents Train schedules/takedown times vary City concerns: pollution, congestion, road damage, safety Trip type – Drop and Pick Depot Shipper Consignee RY 1 RY 2 Trip type – Stay With CY 1 CY 2 Depot Shipper Consignee RY 1 RY 2 Previous work in drayage • Morlok and Spasovic (1990), Hallowell (1989): drayage problems might be improved using OR tools • • • • • Arc-based IP formulation Multi-day model Movement of tractors and containers separately GAMS implementation Optimality through two-phase method A new formulation for the drayage problem • Aggregating customers limits usefulness to drayage companies • Time windows for each customer, deadline and release times for containers • Variables represent truck movement; container movement inherent in network structure • One-day model, discretized time Network: few nodes … C S RY CY C S … many (feasible) arcs Arcs have four indices {i,j,r,s}: (i,j) origin and destination Deadline: 15 RY r: time truck leaves i s: time truck can leave j S Time window: 6-18 This shows loaded arc set only; depending on (i,j) combination, may have empty and bobtail arc sets, defined if time windows are feasible Formulation • Objective: Minimize total distance traveled • Distance (and travel time) can be adjusted for timevariant congestion, construction • Constraints: • All loaded movements must be served, and empties provided; • Flow-balance constraints on each node • Time-slice constraints Results # Cust |A| # trips ObjFn |A| # trips ObjFn |A| # trips ObjFn 6 18677 2 170 20913 3 190 21962 2 202 10 54405 4 276 56004 4 338 49615 4 338 20 161566 8 1078 177164 6 1072 196231 7 916 30 344398 10 1398 351624 11 1426 332458 11 1418 CPLEX 8, Multiprocessor Machine with 1GB RAM computation time from 10 sec - 1 min #RY = #Cust/3 ; #CY= #Cust/5; TW ~ N(8,2) hours Future Directions • Increase problem size (# customers, RY, • • • • CY) Use real data, generate more realistic data Arc formulation as input to path-based formulation Incorporate more realistic trip types (DP empties) Allow penalized time window violations Future Directions • DSS for existing dispatchers • 60% of a day’s trips known 3 days prior • 90% known 1 day prior • Dispatchers add non-model intelligence • Dynamic replaces static • New trip in existing sequence • Variable or random dwell and travel times